Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About WhatAnArtist!

  • Rank
  • Birthday 02/18/1997

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. We don't know that Viserys would be like that as a king. He only became like we see him in Thrones because he'd spent over a decade on the run on another continent, poor and homeless, hunted by murderers. If that had never happened, he might have been a normal and respectable man and king.
  2. Ah, whataboutism. The classic response of someone that isn't willing or able to rebutt any actual points. I fail to see how Robert's "crimes" have anything to do with Cersei's. Cersei tormented Tyrion and murdered Melara before she met Robert, and all of her other evil actions occured after Robert's death. I'll wait for you to provide an explanation as to how Robert had anything to do with Cersei's evil actions, and I hope it isn't the same tired old "He abused her and so that's her excuse to do whatever evil thing she wants". You might personally believe that (as in fact I belive you do), but I'd prefer to see a rational justification instead. It's only "justified" because they are husband and wife, and under medieval law a husband cannot rape his wife. But Cersei's rape of Taena has no legal justification, since she is not Taena's husband. No. As usual you're wrong in your assumptions about other posters and what they said.
  3. Since Mel is the only living PoV at the Wall, that sure as hell makes for an interesting ship
  4. It seems clear that at least part of Jon's storyline in the later seasons was taken from what we might expect to happen with fAegon in the books. Since D&D inexplicably decided to cut fAegon, I simply can't see how the story could reach the end they wanted it to without Jon being resurrected.
  5. Certain people only defend Cersei and justify her actions because she's a woman. That's a fact. If any male character did what she did, they'd be completely and utterly demonised and ranked among the very worst characters in the series. Tormenting her infant brother, including abusing him by inflicting pain on his genitals Murdering her best friend Ordering the massacre of the Stark household Ordering the murders of Robert's bastard children, including babies Having a prostitute beaten and threatened with rape Turning a blind eye to Joffrey's abuse and threats to Sansa Sending innocent people into the dungeons to be tortured/experimented on by Qyburn Framing several innocent young women for serious crimes and getting them imprisoned Psychologically tormenting her youngest child with threats and verbal abuse Raping Taena Merryweather I just.... I don't even know what else needs to be said. These are the actions of an evil, vile person. The fact that people are willing to justify this because "she grew up in a sexist environment" is just appalling. There are countless female characters in the series that grew up in the same environment as her that are good, honest and moral people. Such an environment can certainly justify her being an angry, cold and uncaring person, yes. But not a complete psychopath that delights in inflicting suffering on innocent people. It seriously disturbs me to wonder about the morals of people that are so quick to defend Cersei. It makes me wonder the type of crimes and atrocities they'll justify in real life.
  6. On the issue of the Jaime/Aerys debate, I think people need to remember that 99.9% of Westeros had no idea about just how bad King Aerys was, and they didn't know why Jaime killed him. They had no idea about Aerys raping and abusing his wife, or exactly how he killed Brandon and Rickard Stark, or his intention to burn down King's Landing, or his order for Jaime to murder his own father (Westeros hates kinslayers just as much as kingslayers, remember). As far as most people are concerned, Jaime Lannister betrayed and murdered his king, who was a defenseless and frail man, because he was opportunistically helping his father and the rebels take the city. That's the completely logical assumption that people would make, since Jaime himself arrogantly refuses to explain anything about the situation (though I agree with people that say this feels too contrived by Martin). People can't project their own exclusive knowledge gained by Jaime's PoV onto everyone else. They don't have the information that we do.
  7. Even though Stannis is my favourite character in the books, I don't have too much of a problem with how he was written in the show (until the end of season 5, of course). Sure they removed some of Stannis's more humanising dialogues from the books (e.g. Proudwing, his parents' death), but they compensated for that by fleshing out his relationship with Shireen and making him a very caring father, who even chides his wife for speaking poorly of her. In the books Stannis is barely ever even in the same room as her on any occasion. This is one case of D&D actually making Stannis more sympathetic than his book counterpart. They also didn't include some of Stannis's more questionable moments, like letting Cressen by publicly humiliated. They also made Stannis a legit badass by having him be the first guy to jump off the boat at King's Landing and leading the assault in person, and having to be dragged away from the fighting when the battle was lost. In the books he commanded the battle from his flagship out on the bay and never actually got directly involved with the fighting. More realistic, but not quite as viscerally badass. I specifically remember back in 2012 when the episode first aired that a lot of show-fans said that this made them like Stannis more. Also, Stannis's line of "....thousands" is still one of the most coldly badass lines ever said by anyone. One moment I didn't like though was how Stannis's arrival at the Wall was depicted. It should have been a triumphant and heroic moment, practically the only Stannis actually gets in the series, but instead they had what can best be described as "Sith lord" music playing when he showed up, and the whole thing was played very menacingly, like he was a villain or something. Very disappointing. Another thing I didn't like was that Stannis was too quick in deciding to let Gendry by burned. In the books he agonised over it for weeks and possibly months, repeatedly refusing to let Melisandre do it even when two of the three kings were dead. Only after Joffrey died, exactly as Melisandre predicted, did he finally relent. In the show, NO kings had died when he made this decision, which makes him look like a fanatical fool who didn't need any evidence whatsoever. But in general Stannis's depiction is actually fairly close to the spirit of his book counterpart. He's cold and blunt, with a strong sense of unsentimental justice and a very dry sense of humour. None of it is as fleshed out as the books, of course, but the character is still recognisably Stannis. The same can't be said for other characters like Tyrion, who is whitewashed so thoroughly that he earns his mocking nickname "Saint Tyrion", and is practically a different person. We tend to focus more on how D&D made characters seem morally worse, but people forget that they did the same thing in reverse with other characters, to equally detrimental effect (e.g. Tyrion, Cersei, Arya, Jorah, Shae).
  8. At this point in the series Tyrion still had a modicum of self-restraint and decency. He felt ashamed about what his family had done to Sansa's, and also was no doubt reminded of his other 13 year old wife that was raped - the trauma of that left a lasting impression on him, and I'm sure he didn't want to inflict it on another 13 year old wife of his.
  9. The fact that you've consistently failed to respond to my actual point says as much as I need to know, and says a lot about you. Enjoy your pointless arguing about something that can't be confirmed either way. If that's the type of thing that makes your day feel fulfilling, go right ahead. What a joke.
  10. I have a very hard time believing that Stoneheart would trust Jaime to fulfil another vow to her. She doesn't seem like the type to give second chances, or show even the slightest bit of mercy to those she considers her enemy. She's hanged Freys that had nothing to do with the Red Wedding, and only spared Brienne because she could be of use to her in fulfilling her ultimate vengeance. If Stoneheart gives Jaime another chance at saving her daughters, it'd feel very out-of-character from what we've seen of Stoneheart thus far, and feel far too contrived.
  11. He admits as much to Dany near the end of Storm. Barristan himself makes no claims to selfless loyalty. He's fairly upfront about his failings and hypocrisy. His service to Dany is more a form of personal redemption than a display of his undying loyalty.
  12. I tire of this already. It's clear you seem to relish in this type of argument, hence why you seem unwilling to call a truce here and accept the obvious: This is a pointless debate, because any one of us could be entirely correct or entirely incorrect about everything. Even Martin's own statements aren't even a guarantee of accuracy, since the man has repeatedly over the last two decades rewritten large chunks of the books and restructured the PoVs drastically in the process of writing them. This pointless argument is just a symptom of the extraoardinarily long wait for Winds; nobody would sit here arguing semantics and the difference between one or two PoVs if the wait hadn't been as long as it is. You and @$erPounce can continue this argument for months and it won't matter - not until we actually have the book in our hands and can count up the number of PoVs.
  13. I would be very surprised if Martin added any new PoVs, and even if some were to be added, I highly doubt it'll be a Sand Snake. We already have Cersei's PoV in King's Landing, and we will soon have two that are nearby (JonCon and Arianne in the Stormlands). You said that @StarksInTheNorth's sarcasm about Dany and Bran being unimportant "missed by a mile". I said that it didn't, since I picked it up immediately. I implied that you hadn't read his comment carefully enough, if you thought he wasn't being sarcastic, since anyone claiming that Dany and Bran are unimportant obviously hadn't read the books, which surely isn't the case for anyone posting here. This entire argument has been about exactly how many PoVs will be in Winds based on claims that Martin has made. My point was that it's futile to debate such things, since Martin constantly changes his plans and rewrites his books. He may have said there'll be 13 PoVs a while ago, but that could change any time. We won't know until we have the books in our hands. Yes they are. They want to murder innocent children and start a war which will kill many other innocent people. The people actually responsible for the crimes they want "justice" for are already dead. They just have a bloodlust.
  14. Considering that Martin is well known for his extensive rewrites of his books, I'm surprised that people here are sticking so dogmatically to the believe that what he said in this interview or that is gospel and something that he will strictly adhere to. The guy has practically rewritten entire books and restructured the series in the past, midway through writing a book. Why is it so hard to believe that at some point he'll have changed his mind about how many PoVs will be included in Winds? Only to people unable to read things carefully, it seems. I picked up on it instantly. Only someone that hasn't read the books would say that Dany and Bran aren't important.
  15. Agreed. I'm somewhat glad that Dany takes a more sympathetic and nuanced view of him over time. Viserys lived a sad life, filled with constant fear, never being able to trust anyone, practically homeless, always having to run away further and further from their homeland, and having to sell every possession they had just to survive. From a psychological perspective, his personality as we see it in Thrones makes complete sense, and it would have taken a man of extremely strong moral fortitude to not give in to anger and paranoia like he did. You're right that if he had a loyal and honourable companion with them, like a member of the Kingsguard, it very likely could have kept in check some of his worst impulses. One must remember that Viserys was only fourteen years old when Willem Darry died and he and Daenerys were left completely on their own. Putting that amount of stress on a fourteen year old boy is very harsh, no matter who they are.
  • Create New...